California Panel Backs Science Curriculum That Includes Evolution as a Major Theme

In a move hailed by science educators and civil libertarians, the
California curriculum commission has unanimously endorsed the teaching
of evolution as a key theme in science instruction.

The vote late last month came as the panel adopted a curricular
framework for science that also calls for revisions along the lines
urged by numerous reform reports.

Most significantly, the framework reorganizes science instruction
around themes, rather than specific topics, a move designed to put the
understanding of scientific concepts before the memorization of
facts.

The 187-page document must be considered by the state board of
education, which is expected to vote on it next month after a public
hearing. If adopted, the framework could wield an influence over
improvements in textbooks and science curricula throughout the country,
its supporters predicted.

"This is a remarkable document," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive
director of the National Center for Science Education Inc., a Berkeley,
Calif., group that advocates the teaching of evolution. "I hope it
becomes a model for other states."

"In my eight years' experience, this is the strongest statement on
teaching evolution I have ever seen," added Michael Hudson, western
director of People for the American Way, the civil-liberties group. "It
will send an absolutely clear signal to textbook publishers not to
water down their evolution coverage."

The Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values
Coalition, an Anaheim-based group that says it represents 6,000
churches statewide, said he will ask the state board to modify the
document to ensure that it stresses that evolution is "not fact, it's a
theory."

But Daniel Chernow, the commission's chairman, said commission
members will argue equally adamantly that the framework should remain
intact.

"We want to be clear that, from an education standpoint, we feel
strongly about this framework," Mr. Chernow said. "This will give
California very strong science education."

"We're not talking about creationism or evolution," he added. "We're
quite disturbed by the fact that the United States lags behind other
countries in science. California should be a leader."

Compelling Belief?

The science-curriculum framework is the latest in a series of
controversial efforts by California officials to revamp instruction in
the state.

Previous frameworks for mathematics, English/language arts, and
history-social science have sparked battles that have often pitted
educators against each other and against textbook publishers. The
publishers have argued that the curricula represent too great a
departure from what is taught in other states.

Members of the curriculum commission said they expected another
battle this year in revising the science framework.

In an effort to avoid a bruising fight over evolution, the panel
asked the board to adopt a policy statement emphasizing that science
should not be taught dogmatically. The policy, adopted in January,
states that science teachers should restrict their instruction to
"observable facts and testable hypotheses." (See Education Week, Jan.
25, 1989.)

But instead of settling the issue, the statement appears to have
reopened it. Members of the board said after the policy was adopted
that the statement prohibits the teaching of evolution, which they
consider "dogma."

In response to the board's concerns, the commission deleted a
proposed sentence that described evolution as a fact and a theory.
Board members felt the statement was "too defensive," according to Mr.
Chernow.

But, he said, the panel replaced the sentence with a longer
explanation that outlined the scientific basis for including the
topic.

"The whole thrust of the document--that evolution is the core,
central theme, and motif to all science--that is a compelling belief,"
which is prohibited by the policy, he said. "If they teach evolution as
a fact, they are teaching religion."

Not Just Pigeonholes

But, although the evolution issue has sparked the most controversy,
other aspects of the framework will have a more far-reaching effect on
science instruction, Mr. Chernow suggested.

"Unfortunately, the document gets lost in a so-called battle that we
thought was decided a long time ago," he said.

He cited the framework's call for organizing science instruction by
themes--energy, continuity, patterns of change, and evolution, for
example--that are common to all sciences, rather than by particular
topics within each discipline.

Such an organization will enable students to understand the
connections between the disciplines, Mr. Chernow said.

At the same time, Ms. Scott said, the thematic approach will make
the subject more interesting. Instead of memorizing endless lists of
vocabulary words, as most science courses currently require, students
will gain an insight into the ways science explains the natural
world.

"Science is not memorizing which pigeonhole to put organisms in,"
she said.

Vol. 09, Issue 06

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.